Nameno, what I stated is a fact. Most of his sacrifices are refuted by modern chess theory and analysis.

This is one reason why you'll never be a good player. You are too hung up on the parameters you think theory has over chess. Tal didn't pay a damn bit of attention to it and he became a WCC. Think that over carefully. It doesn't matter what theory is said to be according to computers, if humans can't play that well...

once again, you only show how much of a....____________ (fill in the blank community, I sure you all have your own idea about Yereslov) you are. Get over yourself. You have nothing on anyone here, regardless of what chess theory is. Go look up the meaning of the word theory.

If you go ponder all of this over, I still question your ability to absorb it and use it constructively. Why don't you and actually prove one of here wrong for once....

It's worse: I know an IM & occasionally play him. I have to struggle just to be even material by about move 30, but usually my position is just busted anyhow, even if. But Yereslov would just be demolished right off the bat whether he played e4 or d4.

e4, d4, c4, Nf3, and g3 are equally strong ways to open the game. I like e4, I used to like Nf3. I think that e4 TENDS to be more violent than d4 because of 3 reasons: 1) It's usually easier to open the game without having to sac a pawn, i.e., d4 after e4 is easier than e4 after d4,2) You can castle quicker, which is usually how one brings rooks into the game, and 3) The Bf1 hits the weak f7 square (and h7). But the first move is only one move. I remember a time when Kasparov's favorite was d4 while Karpov's was e4.

I play both 1 e4 and 1 d4 ...... why ? I get tired of sicilians ! I play sicilians as black and if I play 1e4 I also face many sicilians. When more than 50% of your games are sicilians the only way to ensure some variety is to play something other than 1e4, OR quit playing the sicilian yourself. Also, I think its good to be able "to hit with both hands" . ( an expression borrowed from boxers )